Comment here. Please scroll to the end.
If, like me, you are not happy about the use of “leaks” by the press over the ongoing cash-for-honours investigation please feel free to click through to the Press Complaints Commission and make your complaint. If we don’t speak out the British press will continue to feel that they have carte blanche to put the government, the prime minister, his colleagues and even the Labour Party on “trial by media.” The lynch mob will take encouragement from this; that should NEVER be allowed to happen. My approach is that we are ALL INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law.
Go to: “Leaks, Leaks and More Leaks”
Go to: “Police: The State We’re In”
Go to: “Tony Blair – Very Latest”
Thursday 26th April, 2007An Internal Inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Authority?… into the Police? Well, after the Birmingham kerfuffle some are calling for it. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, for the sake of consistency can hardly withdraw their demand for an “independent” inquiry now that it seems it might NOT actually be the Government “wot dunnit!”Now that Scotland Yard’s Peter Clarke has let the cat out of the bag, and the cat has turned round to scratch at the Met’s eyes, what are we to think? Leaking by the Police is not new. The police have leaked information before, and leaked incorrectly for their own purposes.
The press must take their part in responsibility for this. If they weren’t standing by, with their own agendas, waiting for a signal to support their editorial stance, where would the leakers go? And at the moment, the British press is mainly anti-government, and pretty much unconstrained in how they interpret information from sources. Witness the cash-for-honours imbroglio of the last few weeks. Apart from a few independent minded journalists, and the television and radio media which are required by law to provide both sides of an argument, most of the press fell over themselves to tell us who exactly were about to be charged by the Met! How did THEY know? Police leakers again?
So if the leaks are emanating from within the Met, we may have to take much of it with a pinch of salt. Ditto when leaks emanate from other parts of the establishment. It’s part of the power game, part of the tactics, part of positioning amongst and between the country’s “estates”. It does not mean the leakers are necessarily “evil”, but in the media pervasive age, they are all spinners.
Maybe spinning is not so bad, anyway. Remember what happened when our naval people were NOT organised by Royal Naval, MOD or Downing Street spinners! The right hand didn’t even know it had a left hand.
I DO think that since the (written) press is the medium by which we hear the leaks, something should be done about press control and use of such leaked information. Since each newspaper has a political stance on issues, such as Iraq, and/or supports a political party, they are seldom dispassionate observers and reporters.
And the Government said today that it is “a matter for the Police” if there has been a police leak of official, classified information “in an ongoing inquiry”! Interesting that the Government today has been given the opportunity to suggest that the Police kindly searches its own soul, notwithstanding inquiries ongoing!
Monday 23rd April, 2007
The press have been full of it again – well, some of the printed media, anyway, who somehow find it much harder than tv or radio to put BOTH sides of the story – ANY story actually! Read part of “This Is London’s” take:
Following an exhaustive 13-month investigation, Scotland Yard detectives believe they have gathered sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution over allegations that peerages were traded for donations to the Labour Party. Lord Levy has raised £70m for Labour.
If convicted, the suspects face up to two years in jail.
Police also believe there are strong grounds to bring charges over an alleged attempt to cover up the scandal.
The dramatic conclusions of the investigation were outlined in the 216-page report passed to the CPS yesterday afternoon.
According to sources, the dossier states unequivocally that officers believe Tony Blair’s chief fundraiser Lord Levy, Number 10 gatekeeper Miss Turner and Labour Party donor Sir Christopher should face criminal charges.
Lord Levy and Miss Turner were separately arrested over claims that they tried to sell honours and pervert the course of justice. Sir Christopher was detained over allegations concerning the abuse of the honours system. Speculation is mounting that the Prime Minister’s political secretary John McTernan and chief of staff Jonathan Powell may also be charged over the affair. All five deny any wrongdoing.
Sources said the evidence file contains a number of recommendations by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who has led the probe.One said last night: “The police report is very robust. There is no sitting on the fence. But at the end of the day, it will be up to the CPS to decide whether there should be prosecutions.”
Tuesday 27th March, 2007Britain’s top prosecutor is the one who will decide whether or not to bring charges in the so-called “cash-for-honours” investigations. Formerly speculations were running high that the British attorney-general will decide on the issue.”If the attorney-general wants to be consulted, of course we will consult him. But the decision will be made here”, Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions said today.So far police has drawn over 100 persons through the long process of the investigations, notable among them two senior Blair aides, Lord Michael Levy, Labor’s chief fundraiser, and Ruth Turner, Blair’s head of government relations.Tony Blair who is expected to step down in July, according to “sources”, has been questioned twice by the police in connection with his role in the case.
Monday 26th March, 2007Steve Richards’ article in The Independent echoes some of my comments below. He also makes some interesting points about the role of the press in the country’s political climate.
Tuesday 13th March, 2007The BBC is finally free to explain why they were prevented by court injunction from broadcasting their item on the cash-for-honours debacle a week last Friday. The document in discussion was written by Ruth Turner and addressed to Jonathan Powell. It intimated that she had been asked “to lie” by Lord Levy as regards his involvement. I thought we already KNEW that, thanks to earlier leaked reports and of course subsequent reports from The Guardian and other media outlets.And why hasn’t the Met yet interviewed the people it was concerned would find out about their being about to be interviewed? Because those people DID find out by the following day, thanks to The Guardian? OK. So why has it taken so long – ten days for the BBC’s injunction to be lifted – if the Beeb had something the Guardian didn’t?Confused? So we should be. That’s the plan, imho.
Wednesday 7th March, 2007Lord Goldsmith says he has “no regrets” in seeking the injunction on behest of the police “in the interests of justice”. He dismissed suggestions that he had acted in the interests of government or Downing Street. Number 10 said again today that they had played “no part in the decision to seek an injunction”.
Tuesday 6th March, 2007They’re all coming uncovered again. The papers – gagged or not, the BBC – semi-gagged, the Police and Number 10, both of whom would obviously love to gag each other PERMANENTLY!I’m getting a bit fed up with this. Really! When you consider that it could be weeks, even months before charges are brought, if ever they are. And meanwhile people in the eye of this storm are having their reputations and futures splattered with mud – over WHAT?If you must bore yourself silly with this “wasn’t me, it was him” stuff please go here to find out the latest – I can’t be bothered typing in here too.What a load of professional adults’ time and public money over such puerile nonsense.I CanNOT BeLIEVE IT!
Thursday 1st March, 2007Prospect Magazine seems to have come to the same conclusion as myself as regards the leakers (who seem to have dried up a bit for the moment, thank the good plumber.)They said recently at their site:
Britain’s newest political forceThe cash for honours inquiry has introduced a big new player into British politics—the leakers and briefers of the Metropolitan police. Their serious abuse of authority has passed largely uncriticised partly because the media have benefited from the leaking and also because the object of the leaking has been Tony Blair and his aides—who are neither popular nor blameless in the leaking game. But now the Met has a taste for briefing, it won’t give it up—the whole political class now has a powerful adversary in matters that affect Met interests. Most of the cash for honours inquiry has been a media and Met-driven farce, fuelling political distrust. (A prosecution under the 1925 Honours Act is almost impossible because—since the creation of the Lords appointments commission in 2000—honours are not even in the direct gift of the PM. The allegation of disguising political gifts as loans to avoid disclosure has more force, but all the big parties have done it, driven by a structural problem in political funding.) So why has the Met got so heavy not only with briefings but dawn raids, spinning out the inquiry, destroying the career of Des Smith, almost derailing the academies programme? It seems to be two things. One is the rise of graduate police officers who are more interested in the political game than their predecessors. Another is the police’s loss of responsibility for bringing charges (now with the CPS). To make up that loss, some officers clearly think it’s their job to whip up a clamour for prosecution.
Sunday 11th February, 2007
The Guardian reports:”It has emerged that Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, is expected to launch an internal inquiry into the investigation once it is complete. The aim will be to examine the controversy surrounding the investigation and its impact on politics.
It is expected to look at the constitutional problems thrown up by investigating a government in office, particularly if nobody is prosecuted, and the handling of an inquiry which has soured relations between Britain’s biggest police force and the government overseeing it.One senior government source said Commissioner Blair was expected to order the inquiry ‘and to be willing to publish its findings’ once the question of any pending charges was resolved. Police are expected to wrap up their inquiries within the next few weeks although the Crown Prosecution Service could well take longer to decide whether anyone recommended for charges will actually face prosecution.John Yates, the detective in charge of the inquiry, is already committed to giving evidence to the Commons public administration committee when the inquiry is finished.”So that’s something. Perhaps then the perception of Tony Blair’s reputation and integrity will be re-assessed in the light of the facts and not press or opposition speculation. Perhaps; but don’t hold your breath. The damage may already have been done and prove irreversible, even if ALL charges are thrown out.Saturday 10th February, 2007I’ve been wondering about all this stuff about cover-ups. Now, I’m not into conspiracy theories – I really do think it’s often more cock-up than conspiracy. But, some say that the talk about Home Office leaks to the press have taken the press’s eye off the ball as regards some big issues – prisons, Home Office problems, arrests & detentions without charge – and of course the honours saga. And for that the government might be breathing more easily this week.Well, here’s another thought to throw into the melting pot. A “triple conspiracy” Last week, the press, the police and the government were all accused of messing up democracy by either leaking or publishing the leaks. So, could it be that they have all got together at high level and decided to stem the flow of public mistrust. So, the government praises the police for their Birmingham Six or is it Seven now, inquiry; the police point out that they and only they make decisions about police inquiries; the press have to scramble about looking for “legitimate” sources for leaks, and find fewer than they are used to. And those they find have to be named. They use any anti-government, anti-police leaks sparingly ever-mindful of the possibility that their independent self-regulatory Press Complaints Commission’s independence has been brought into question.
And, on the Today interview last week, the PM mentioned something about press responsibility. Even if Mr Blair is not around long enough to do anything about the press or the PCC, other Labour MPs may well have a vested interest, as well as a public interest, in looking at this again. If the PCC say they try to resolve issues within two weeks, that is a toothless tool, if within that period public perceptions of government, police or anyone or anything else have already been irreparably maligned, perhaps wrongly.
Who knows – knows who, as they say.
[above quote] Isn’t this what they say about politicians, too?
Whatever, I expect there will be more to follow in the coming weeks. The press have enough to be getting on with preparing their various versions of the next move in the police inquiry. As they write their copy for all eventualities in the honours inquiry outcome, here’s hoping they are not also scribbling a footnote to their own PCC.
Thursday 8th February, 2007Is there a cover-up! I’m beginning to wonder. And if there is, by whom and why?I have been informed, by someone who was there, that last night in Birmingham near or at the ICC, a “bomb scare” caused the cancellation of an event. Yet I have heard nothing of this on the news. Why not?How many bomb scares are recorded in this country? Are they increasing, staying roughly the same or decreasing? Are hoaxes increasing or decreasing? Is the reporting of them, whether hoaxes or not, being limited today for fear of public outrage or public disbelief?I only ask because I am concerned that such occasions are being kept from the public because the police or government or both feel that such incidents will be misinterpreted as police or government using such events for reasons of control or to prevent misuse of the information.I don’t know if this is the case or not, and I have no desire to stir up anything which might precipitate or cause public unrest.BUT, if my thesis is true, and the government and/or the police feel their hands are in some way tied, we have a problem.And this possible unwillingness of the authorities to inform the public might even as be a direct result of recent events, such as the Birmingham arrests and the Honours inquiry and the leaks whirling around both. If so, perhaps we can already see the effects of the misinformation emanating from recent leaks over the honours inquiry. And perhaps some body, other than the government or police, bears some responsibility for the suspicion presently piled on both.At the centre of all of this is the medium for public information – the press. Have they been to quick to accept leaks and spread them far and wide? Are there own freedoms to police themselves now in the spotlight following recent events?Perhaps in a quieter period we will be clear as to the press’s responsibilities in reporting, or not, such events.
IS THE UK A POLICE STATE? 
Today the Prime Minister has denied completely that we are living in a “police state” as claimed by a man who was arrested and then released in last week’s Birmingham arrests. The PM is right; the man, released without charge and free to make his claims in this “police state”, is wrong.
If the government or police wanted to raise the hackles of the public, something of which they are often accused, they would take advantage of any and every “bomb scare” to heighten fears and increase tension. They have not done so in last night’s case.
And opposition party members really need to be sure of their facts before they too jump on the band-waggon of accusing the Home Office of leaking, as on Question Time tonight.
UK PREPAREDNESS FOR A HOME-GROWN ATTACK & MULTICULTURALISM IN FRANCE
And tonight on Radio 4’s PM programme (at 5:23 on the radio report) there were two news items which are, perhaps pertinent to this.
Firstly, an item on our preparedness for an attack by a terrorist group, and secondly a report on the issue raised regarding the Islamic religion and culture in France.
It’s very difficult, as we know, raising either of these issues – terrorism, and the impact of Islam on western states. But it should, indeed must not be. Both the UK and France have held their doors open for decades to incomers regardless of religion. But we have perhaps been too undemanding of them, and too quick to turn a blind eye to goings-on in the hope that our multicultural societies would by blend by osmosis. For the vast majority of Muslim incomers, it is working and they integrate into our societies, whilst keeping their own traditions, peacefully. But there are many faces hidden behind the veil, not to put too fine a point on it., and some of them have clearly stated intentions at which we should be justly outraged.
Here in the UK, a report from Dr Paul Cornish of Chatam House a leading independent international affairs think tank (Radio 4 PM programme here) on how much we should be prepared for a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack has been released. Dr Cornish says we need “an informed and reasoned debate” for the purpose of preparedness, and so that our “response to such an occurrence is proportionate, balanced and reasonable.” He wonders if the government is being limited by their unease at the accusation of raising fears unnecessarily or of exaggerating the dangers. Influenced, it would seem by some who bear anger and grudges and even agendas over Iraq and its inquiries, (which they choose to disbelieve and therefore rubbish), the government seems to be over a barrel on this.
To warn or not to warn? To tell or not to tell?
Should we await events, possibly sleepwalking into disaster, because the government is being intimidated? Or should we insist on knowing government plans and any local action planned in such an event?
Can the dissemination of such information be done in such as way as to keep all communities on-side. Or, do we take the risk that we might upset some in our community?
It isn’t easy. But that is the responsibility of government. I think they should blurt it out, and let us all know how we are to deal with it. They owe it to all of us. They should not be intimidated by those who might wish to harm this country or its people.
FRANCE
In France today there are rumblings about the extent to which Islamic culture is creeping into French life. I will update here when I find a web link, but I caught (on the Radio 4 PM programme) the words, “our culture has been in existence for centuries and we are now in danger of being taken over by a culture which has only been here for the last 30 years.”
Tags: 1. Tony Blair, arrest, cover-up, honours inquiry, police
June 15, 2007 at 10:02 am |
It is all very well for the broadcast media being required to give time to both sides of an arguement, which was sugegsted way above.
So shall we now consider how often you beat your wife?